Joaquín Jareño

Over the last few years, in part due to the political impact of terrorist activities, the debate on the moral significance of torture as a useful means of obtaining information from enemy combatants has arisen with an urgency not seen in many years. Stressing the importance of exceptional cases, the defenders of torture attempt to justify its acceptance by and back its use in the judicial system of Western democracies. Yet what is at stake here are the basic moral principles—especially that of human dignity-on which our political convictions rest. Admitting of exceptions would change the value of these principles: what once werefixed guidelines for acceptable action now become alterable according to specific political demands, thus making torture into a morally neutral act. The current defence of torture in the West may be a symptom of the progressive absolutization of the State.

I reflect on the incidence and character of the certainties that comprise the basis of our ethical behavior. We do not speak of the propositions due to evidence or to the result of conclusions to which our reasoning leads us. Rather, we treat that which is taken for granted when we justify any behavior. These certainties are not the consequence of theoretical teaching but of action itself, defined here as coinciding action between individuals. While coincidence gives ethical certainties meaning, the training we receive from childhood with respect to these certainties cannot be overestimated. However, ethical teaching as we commonly know it can be articulated in relation with these certainties. Finally, I reflect on the difficulties and problems posed by the different certainties in the background of the behavior of distinct groups and individuals. In my opinion, this does not lead to ethical relativism because some way of continuity must be given in terms of the common human condition. Persuasion can drive individuals sharing a common ethical image of the world to participate in another because some of the certainties are surely shared.

This paper tries to discuss the concept of inclusive toleration, conceived as that toleration which is not based on empirical considerations –more kantiano- nor it needs political justifications, but it is rooted on individuals’ dignity conceived as a metaphysical preconception and not as the result of public recognition. To see the scope of the concept we analyze John Locke’s views in his Letter concerning Toleration, and John Rawls’ ideas on the cooperation of free individuals who voluntarily and rationally interact to arrive to political agreements. It will be argued that Rawls’ position is more inclusive than Locke’s, though it still has obvious shortcomings.